62°
GREENBURGH, N.Y. – The issue of what to do with the former Greenburgh WestHELP site, whether to turn it into a school, restore it to use as affordable housing, or come up with some other option altogether, has created a political uproar at the town and county levels.
Last month, Greenburgh Supervisor Paul Feiner proposed razing the 108-housing units on the campus of Westchester Community College and granting the Ferncliff Manor school a 50-year lease for the lot. He said the school would pay nearly $1 million in rent to the town.
State Assembly member Thomas Abinanti (D-Greenburgh) endorsed the Ferncliff Manor plan, and called the school a “natural fit” on the lot.
The plan, however, met resistance from some town residents and several Westchester County legislators who noted that the county-owned land was leased to Greenburgh only for the use of affordable housing and insisted it continue to be used that way.
On Wednesday, Ken Jenkins (D-Yonkers), chairman of the County Board of Legislators, met with members of the Edgemont Community Council and told them the county’s 30-year lease agreement with the town, which was signed in 2001 and requires affordable or senior citizen housing be available on the lot, would be followed to the “letter of the law.”
"It will be used for low and moderate income housing or the county will have no choice but to terminate the agreement,” Jenkins said in a telephone interview.
He added that if Feiner's plan were modified to include housing and the school, it might fit within the terms of the county lease.
Despite Jenkins’ warnings and a mounting opposition, Ferncliff Manor remains the town’s number one priority, Feiner said. The rent from the school would be more than any revenue from affordable housing.
On Thursday, Feiner called together members of the town board, County Legislator Michael Smith (R-Greenburgh) and his wife, Marie Smith, the head of the Mayfair-Knollwood Civic Association, Joseph Hankin, the president of Westchester Community College and Bishop Wilbert Preston, chairman of the Greenburgh Housing Authority, for an informal round-table discussion to hash out other options for the property, which has been vacant for seven months.
One option would be to create senior citizen housing.
Like affordable family housing, a senior complex would generate little income for the town, Feiner said. It would have less of an impact on the surrounding community than a family-occupied complex, he said.
Another option, a proposal first hatched during the Thursday evening meeting, would be to create an intergenerational housing program with senior citizens and Westchester Community College nursing students living in the complex.
Under that plan, a portion of the former WestHELP site would be used for senior citizen housing, while the remainder would be rented by the college for dormitories, creating a new model for intergenerational housing.
Hankin, the college president, said the school may be open to the idea.
“We are always looking for more space,” Hankin said.
By offering housing to seniors and students who meet the low or moderate income standards, the plan would fall within the terms of the lease agreement, Feiner said.
On Friday, the supervisor had another idea on the table. The county could sell the land, buy the town out of the lease and use the land for affordable housing.
“We now have a lot of options and they are all viable,” Feiner said.
The supervisor is prepared to present the plans Tuesday to the county's Board of Legislators Committee on Community Services.
Comments (7)
here is an excerpt from what is behind the WestHelp matter
Shamefully, Mr Feiner appears to be standing with those who folks whose intentions have been found to implicate racial discriminination
In the Matter of the Application of Myles GREENBERG and
Frances M. Mulligan, Petitioners-Appellees,
v.
Anthony F. VETERAN, Supervisor and Susan Tolchin, Town
Clerk, Respondents-Appellants.
No. 173, Docket 89-7476.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued Sept. 29, 1989.
Decided Nov. 7, 1989.
Jonathan Lovett (Lovett & Gould, White Plains, N.Y. of counsel), for petitioners-appellees.
Paul Agresta, Town Atty., Town of Greenburgh, Elmsford, N.Y., for respondents-appellants.
Before OAKES, Chief Judge, and LUMBARD and PIERCE, Circuit Judges.
LUMBARD, Circuit Judge:
1
May a town official who is sued in state court for acting, as he believes, to prevent the violation of rights guaranteed by the federal constitution remove such a suit to federal court under the "refusal clause" of the civil rights removal statute?
2
We think he may. Anthony F. Veteran and Susan Tolchin, the Town Supervisor and Town Clerk,1 respectively, of Greenburgh, New York, appeal from an order, issued sua sponte by the District Court for the Southern District, remanding the case to the New York Supreme Court, Westchester County. Appellees Myles Greenberg and Frances M. Mulligan brought a special proceeding in the New York Supreme Court in December 1988, pursuant to Article 78 of the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, seeking judicial review of Veteran's denial of their petition to secede from Greenburgh and to incorporate a new village. Veteran then removed the action to the district court on January 30, 1989 under the "refusal clause" of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1443(2). Though Greenberg and Mulligan did not contest removal, the district court on its own motion on April 17, 1989 remanded the case to the New York Supreme Court for lack of jurisdiction. 710 F.Supp. 962.
3
According to Judge Goettel, the removal petition did not, and Veteran in good faith could not, allege a conflict between state and federal law. He held that such a conflict is a prerequisite to removal under the "refusal clause." He found no conflict because the removal petition defended Veteran's refusal to incorporate the village on both state and federal constitutional grounds. We believe that the removal petition, in alleging facts which raise a substantial question under federal equal protection law as a reason for refusing to incorporate the proposed village under the New York Village Law, alleged the requisite conflict between state and federal law, notwithstanding that the allegations also implicate state equal protection law as further justification for denying incorporation. Accordingly, we reverse.
4
In January 1988, the Town of Greenburgh joined Westchester County and a not-for-profit organization called "West HELP" in proposing the construction of a shelter for 108 homeless families on property in Greenburgh owned by Westchester County. It is undisputed that most of the 108 homeless families are black.
5
In February 1988, manifesting what the district court termed "the NIMBY syndrome" (Not In My Back Yard), residents of Greenburgh opposed to the construction of the proposed shelter formed the Coalition of United Peoples, Inc., or COUP, to stop the project. Pursuant to New York Village Law ("Village Law") Secs. 2-200 to 2-258 (McKinney 1973 & Supp.1989), COUP prepared a petition to incorporate part of Greenburgh as the Village of Mayfair Knollwood; the proposed Village would include the site of the proposed shelter. The district court opinion notes that since Westchester County owns the land on which the shelter would be built, incorporation could not stop the project directly but would enable COUP to tie up the project with red tape and zoning requirements.
6
On September 14, 1988, pursuant to Village Law Sec. 2-202, COUP presented the incorporation petition to Veteran, who, as required by Village Law Sec. 2-204, convened a public hearing on November 1 at which oral testimony concerning the project was received. Veteran adjourned the hearing until November 21 to receive and consider written comments on the incorporation petition.
7
On December 1, Veteran denied the incorporation petition on six grounds: four aspects of the petition process were defective under the Village Law; the boundaries of the proposed village, where ascertainable, evinced an intent to exclude black residents and thus violated the state and federal constitutions; and obstruction of the shelter project would violate the state and federal constitutions.
The story also states, incorrectly and without attribution, that "[t]he rent from the school [Ferncliff] would be more than any revenue from affordable housing." Who says?
In fact, the proposed rent from Ferncliff, which was originally reported to be $900,000 a year, turned out to be illusory because the rent was contingent on state aid, the amount of which is uncertain. As has been reported elsewhere, according to Ferncliff, the $900,000 figure in the Town's proposed lease was merely a "placeholder" and thus not a real number. In other publications, Mr. Feiner conceded that the rent from Ferncliff was uncertain. Why not here?
As indicated in an earlier post, and has been widely reported elsewhere, HUD believes that the existing apartments, as is, could rent for about $1000 a month which, if fully rented, would generate for the Town much more than the rent it would receive from Ferncliff.
It would appear that the only expense the Town would incur would be the expense of hiring an entity or company to manage the units. The Greenburgh Housing Authority, which has a waiting list of 200 families looking for affordable housing, may be able to supply that service, but so could other entities, but the cost to the Town of hiring a company to manage the property would be a fraction of the rent it receives.
The Town is legally required to use the WestHELP property for "low and moderate income housing" and for no other purpose. Mr. Feiner, Mr. Smith and the Mayfair Knollwood Civic Association have made clear that they do not want -- indeed have never wanted -- the WestHELP property used for that purpose, and they will use every ruse in the book, including misleading gullible reporters, to try to convey the false and misleading impression that it should be up to Greenburgh to decide how the property should be used, and if Greenburgh doesn't want affordable housing there, that is Greenburgh's choice to make. So gullible reporters are told that Ferncliff is the better choice, that it will generate more revenue to the Town than housing, and that county officials who won't consent are hurting local governments.
The real reason for their opposition to affordable housing in that area, however, is the same reason the federal government brought suit against Westchester County in 2005 for impeding affordable housing in the county's mostly white municipalities.
It is a matter of public record that Mayfair Knollwood tried to incorporate as its own village in the late 1980s in an effort to block WestHELP from being constructed and that Mr. Feiner's predecessor, Tony Veteran, refused to go along with that effort, thereby establishing the precedent in the Second Circuit, aided in part by the NAACP, that forming a village in New York for the purpose of excluding racial minorities is legally impermissible. Mr. Feiner has aligned himself with Mayfair Knollwood in this dispute and residents of Greenburgh need to know that when Mr. Feiner and others talk about "affordable housing" at WestHELP not being the "right fit" for the neighborhood. These are racial code words.
The Daily Greenburgh does a disservice to its readers when it gets so many easily verifiable facts wrong.
The current status of the WestHelp project is another example of Feiner's very poor land use decisions.
The previous writer did not mention the very dangerous situation Feiner has created by allowing the Mount Vernon Neighborhood Health Center to potentially open for business at 295 Knollwood Road without installing an ADA compliant sidewalk.
Feiner has also proposed allowing the Greenburgh Housing Authority to take over operation of the WestHelp site. Has the Greenburgh Housing Authority paid the Town of Greenburgh for all police services rendered to the Greenburgh Housing Authority at its current facilities ?
Robert Reninger, Chairman
Broadview Civic Association
First, contrary to what she story says, the Town's 30-year lease agreement with Westchester County was NOT "signed in 2001." It was signed in 1990 by Tony Veteran, Paul Feiner's predecessor, and by Andrew O'Rourke, the Republican former county executive. Second, contrary to what the story says, Westchester County owns both the land AND the 108 apartments on the site. It was paid for by taxpayer funds. It is not an asset of the Town, which has very limited discretion in terms of how the property may be used. Third, contrary to what the story says, the lease does NOT requires that "affordable or senior citizen housing be available on the lot." The county's lease with the town gives the Town a 30-year lease of the property, commencing in September 2001 -- ten years after the original 1990 lease document was signed -- only on condition that the Town of Greenburgh use the property for "low and moderate income housing." Such housing could be used for anyone meeting that criteria, including veterans and seniors, among others.
According to HUD, each individual unit could currently rent for $1000 a month which means that, by deliberately keeping the units vacant for the past seven months, Mr. Feiner has cost Greenburgh taxpayers thus far as much as $700,000. The Greenburgh Housing Authority currently has a waiting list of more than 200 families looking for affordable housing. Mr. Feiner should explain to taxpayers and county officials why THAT is not the best use for the property. Using the property instead for student housing would NOT be in the best interests of Greenburgh taxpayers because, when the Mayfair Knollwood Civic Association recommended this option a few years ago, it was determined that student housing will generate much less in revenue for the Town than leasing the units to those most in need of affordable housing.
"MEMBERS OF THE TOWN BOARD"? Who? An official meeting that the public wasn't invited to?
Or just sloppy journalism.
A BRAND NEW IDEA "first hatched at the Thursday meeting. Huh? Let me see if I got this whopper right. A 108 unit housing facility ON THE GROUNDS OF THE WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE...
to be used as dormitory space for students attending the college.
"Hankin, the college president, said the school may be open to the idea.
“We are always looking for more space,” Hankin said."
But it gets better.
"Under that plan, a portion of the former WestHELP site would be used for senior citizen housing, while the remainder would be rented by the college for dormitories, creating a new model for intergenerational housing."
INTERGENERATIONAL HOUSING, a radical new idea ("new model") unless you have ever lived in an apartment building/complex, especially those that have been built near colleges. I hope that the Seniors selected are mostly deaf because "generationally speaking", students have been known to take occasional breaks from their studies and PARTY.
And the topper, which could only have come from Feiner -- a non-practicing attorney who still has no idea of the reason for "must be in writing" and "endorsed by capable parties".
"On Friday, the supervisor had another idea on the table. The county could sell the land, buy the town out of the lease and use the land for affordable housing.
“We now have a lot of options and they are all viable,” Feiner said."
The "in writing" refers to what is called a LEASE. The LEASE has certain requirements which must by observed by the signatory parties. When the Town signed the lease with the County, it agreed to use the property for affordable housing; to do other would be a violation of the lease terms or what is called IN DEFAULT for which there are several cures -- among them being CANCELLATION of the lease (with or without damages).
What does Feiner, with the Town already in default, think he has to sell ("buy the town out of the lease") to the County?
Whoops, let me take that back, the County could end the dispute and pay CONSIDERATION ($10.00) just to kiss Feiner goodbye. Thus, Feiner would be correct because $10.00 is after all, a buyout, much like the $2500 buyout "members of the town council who have existing health insurance get for refusing the town council's perk of free insurance to their part-time selves. $2500 x 4 = $10,000,
$10,000 paid out $10.00 gained. Another example (County paying the Town) of financial misdirection by Feiner, the town's supervisor AND chief financial officer who refused to renew the lease with WESTHELP (this being the reason why new tenants are being considered) which brought in the paltry sum of $1.2 MILLION annually ($100,000 monthly). Much more than any proposal under current consideration. Meanwhile...the facility remaining vacant since October 2011, the town has already lost $800,000 of revenue (had WESTHELP been allowed to stay) just thru May 2012.
Which is why activists continue to sing this song:
"Nothing could be Feiner were he in Carolina in the morning."
Hal Samis
dear wpeyesnears
first - do you have any candidates to run against mr feiner?
second - i would think what the white plains police department is doing (such as killing people) might be of more interest to you
Classic Feiner deflection. HE SCREWED UP BIG and is now trying to dance his way out of it. The public paid for low income housing and it should stay as housing. It's not up to Feiner to decide to whom or how the County rents it out. Low income housing, built for low income residents, is what it is and should stay, regardless of how much money Greenburgh will make or lose. Feiner's decisions is why HE, the TOWN BOARD and Greenburgh were found guilty of discrimination, destroying evidence etc., in the Fortress Bible verdict, lost in the Dromore Road verdict. This just gets added to his list of bad decisions by an incompetent “Stupidvisor”. HE HAS TO GO!!!!